Creeds & Confessionalism
Over the centuries Christians of all persuasions have seen it beneficial to craft creeds and theological declarations detailing their faith. From Nicea to Westminster to the Baptist Faith & Message, confessionalism is a part of Christian orthodoxy.
This begs the question, "Why is their so much resistance to confessionalism in so much of modern evangelicalism?" Glib statements like "No creed but Christ" and "Doctrine divides, Christ unites" are proclaimed from pulpits and throughout cyberspace. In response, I'd like to pose the following questions to you brothers:
- Is confessionalism a healthy practice?
- To what extent does a congregation's particular polity factor in when crafting a creed?
- Should congregational churches (with the SBC in particular) adopt confessions that are more sharply focused than those endorsed by the denomination? Is this a healthy or a divisive practice?
- What level of confessional subscription should a local church hold its officers (elders and deacons) to in election and ordination?
- If you were to choose a historical confession of faith to be adopted by the congregation you serve, which one would it be and why?
I look forward to some healthy debate and discussion from you brothers.
posted by Anonymous at 4:08 PM
6 Comments:
Drew,
Great question. We should have some interesting conversation and helathy debate.
1. Yes, it is very healthy.
2. I need clarification on this question. I think I know what your asking but I want to make sure.
3. Yes. The reason I say yes to this question is a matter of grave importance to SBs. We lack doctrine. In general, we don't teach it (that is why I am thankful for pastors like Charlie who teach it). Since we don't teach it, our people don't know it; therefore, they don't really know what they believe. They think they know, but in reality, they don't. That is why we hear so many discouraging reports from Barna. This problem is correctable (over a very long period of time). We need to be as specific as possible when it comes to doctrine. Confessions that are too vague leave the people (who lack the tools in many cases) to take the general and extrapolate down to the specific, a dangerous practive indeed. However, it is important to be careful, because you don't want to overly influence and shape the congregations whole theological system. So, there is a need for a healthy balance.
Simply put, this would be a very healthy practice. I would present the church with several sound confessions of faith. We would work together to find out which confession we would use. After coming to a conclusion as a congregation, we would make this confession a regular part of the teaching in our church. It seems to me that this would be a wonderful chance for a church to understand what they believe and unify around it. It is easier to fight when you know what you are fighting for.
4. Deacons would need to have a basic understanding of our confession. They would not be expected to have a thorough knowledge of it because they would not, in most cases, be expected to teach. Elders, on the other hand, would need to have a thorough working knowledge of the confession, especially if you believe in "Elder-lead" churches as I do.
5. I, personally, would pick a creed and a confession. The creed is easy. I would use the Nicene Creed. The confession is more difficult. I would probably use the New Hampshire Baptist Confession.
1. Yes, it is healthy because it forces the believers to write down exactly what their core beliefs are, thus providing accountability.
2. I'm not sure what you are asking either.
3. I think the BFM is fine...and I'm glad they continue to fine-tune it.
4. They should keep with what the confession states. I feel that the number one reason why so may SBCers are uneasy with adopting more of a creedal stance is that, by adopting a creed, one has built-in accountability. The danger in local church autonomy is for there to a lack in accountability, especially for the pastor. I think this motive for not wanting to adopt a creed is driven by selfish desires to not have to have a standard to live by.
5. I'm not familiar with enough historical confessions to answer that question truthfully, but if I had to choose I would choose the New Hampshire Confession as well.
Drew,
It's your turn. What do you think?
1. I agree that confessionalism is a healthy and important practice.
2. I don't even know what I was asking with this one. My apologies for my ambiguity, gentlemen.
3. I think that for the SBC, the BFM is sharp enough to suit most everybody, without being too broad to lose denominational particulars. What I really had in mind when posing this question is a denomination that has so vague of a confessional statement as to include all evangelicals, with little to no denominational distinctives. For example, the National Association of Evangelicals purposefully has adopted an "umbrella" statement.
4. This is an interesting dilemma. If I am in an elder-ruled church, then I would absolutely hold elders and deacons to a higher standard than the congregation. Mark Dever (Capitol Hill Baptist Church) makes an interesting point on this issue, however. If the ultimate authority in a church is the congregation itself, then he argues that the pastor should not the elders to something more strict, such as the Second London Confession, while the congregation at large must only subscribe to the BFM 2000. I think that is a wise practice. Personally my belief is that no "second-level" confession should be adopted, but officers must hold more closely to the one confession that the congregation as a whole can agree upon.
5. I'll answer this question in two ways. As a Presbyterian, I'd be a fool not to choose the Westminster Confession. It is a theological masterpiece. If I was a Baptist, then I think that the New Hampshire Confession would be my pick. I might consider looking at Second London, but I am not sure that I would want to bind the consciences of the members of the congregation to so strict of a covenant theology. I am covenantal, but I would hesitate mandating that particular theological outlook on the entire body in a day when many people wanting to join the church may never have heard of covenant theology.
As a follow-up on my last statement concerning covenant theology, let me clarify. In that situation, I think that it would be wise to have a confessional statement that allows a bit more wiggle room, while each and every Sunday the theological perspective of the sermon has underlying covenantal framework. That way, they are instructed and persuaded that the Bible truly does have a covenantal framework while not forcing it upon someone who was born and raised reading the Scofield Bible.
As far as the deacons and elders go, I think Paul lays out some pretty strict guidelines there.
Post a Comment
<< Home